7. The charisma in ordination. — St. Paul says to Timothy, ' Neglect not the charisma that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ' (1 Ti 4'-') ; and 'kindle (stir into flame, RVm) the charisma of God which is in thee through the laying on of my hands ' (2 Ti 1' : on these two verses see further below, 9). That this ' charisma ' (gift) is not the office to which Timothy was ap- pointed— whatever that was — but the inward grace which enabled him to discharge it, is seen from the words iv aol which occur in both passages (so Alford, Ellieott, Liddon, Comm. in loc. ; Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT, p. 246 ; see also R. Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, bk. v. ch. Ixxvii.). The nature of the charisma is referred toin2Ti 1', which immediately follows the second passage ; it is a spirit of power and love and discipline ((ru0f>o«(7/ioD, i.e., possibly, ' self-control,' or better, ' the capacity of exercising discipline without abandoning love ' [so Swete]). That the ' charis- mata' or gifts of the Spirit are not all of them what we call 'extraordinary,' but include those faculties which enable the regular ministry to
ORDIXATIOX
OKDIXATION
117
carry out tlieir work, may be seen also from St. Paul's description of the gifts in 1 Co 12. The gifts are indeed various, but tliey include ' apostles,' 'teacliers,' 'helps,' 'governments,' as well as 'powers,' 'gifts of healing,' 'kinds of tongues' (v.-* ; cf. the preceding verses). The same thing is seen from Ko 12"''*.
Tlie belief that in ordination a charisma of the Spirit is given does not (it need hardly be said) mean that those who thus receive it have not before received the Holy Spirit. Tlie Seven, for e.vample, were to be full of [Holj'] Spirit and wisdom before they were elected by tlie people and appointed and ordained by the apostles (Ac 6'). Stephen was already 'a man full of faith and Holy Spirit' (v.°). But the gifts of the Spirit are many and various ; and the charisma which Timothy was not to neglect but to kindle was that special gift which would enable him to be a good Christian minister.
8. The mission of Barnabas and Saul from Antioch. — In considering the present subject we must necessarily touch on the meaning of the ceremony in Ac 13'"^, when these two great mission- aries were sent out on their lirst evangelistic journey. Was it an ordination, or a ' dismission service ' ? Was it the appointment of Barnabas and Saul to the apostolate ? We read that certain ' prophets and teachers ' were at Antioch — Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, Manaen, Saul. 'As they minis- tered (XeiTovpyounToii') to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said. Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they had fasted and praj-ed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.' The ' sending forth ' is expressly said to be the act of the Holy Ghost (v.-"). This was after the return of Barnabas and Saul from Jerusalem, whither they had gone to take the alms of the Church at Antioch (IP" 12-'). St. Luke's pronouns are some- what ambiguous. But his phrase in 13' must mean that Symeon, Lucius, and Manaen (and possibly other prophets and teachers, if any un- named ones were present)* prayed and laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, and sent them away. It was clearly an important occasion. It was a solemn service or liturgy before God, during which the Holy Spirit indicated His Divine purpose — doubtless by the mouth of one of the prophets present. They then fasted and — apparently on a second occasion — prayed, laid on hanils, and sent the two missionaries away. It is the view of some that this was an ' ordination ' of Barnabas and Saul to the apostleship (so, e.g., Rackham, Com. inloc). It is said that hereafter, but not before, they are de- scribed as 'apostles' (H"), and that though St. Paul was made an apostle by our Lord directly, yet that Divine appointment did not make it un- necessary for the Church at large by a formal act to recognize it. But (however that may be) the view that these two men were on this occasion made apostles appears to the present writer to be more than doubtful. In the lirst place, nothing whatever is said in the passage in question about the apostleship, or indeed about an a])pointraent to any ottice whatever. Secondly, in Gal 1' St. Paul explicitly claims that he is an ' apostle not from (djrA) men, neither through (Sid) man, but tlirough Jesus Christ and God the Father.' His apostleship is of Divine, not of human, origin ; the same is true of the apostleship of tlie Twelve also. Further, his apostleship is not through man — no man is the instrument by which this Divinely appointed apostleship came to him.
* The Tivn of the TR is badly attested, and can hardly be original. D* and Vulg. have 'among whom [were] Barnabas,' etc., suggesting that there were others. But probably the list given is exclusive.
Indeed, the whole argument of the first two cha|)ters of this Epistle is based on the supposition that St. Paul did not derive authority through the Twelve — and a fortiori not through any Christian 'prophets and teachers.' And in the third place the suggestion .-iliout Church recognition, if it be pressed to mean (as it is pressed by Kackham) that Symeon, Lucius, and Manaen conferred the apostleship on Barnabas and Saul, means that tho.se who were not tliem.selves apostles could make others apostles. Rackham .says that as the Divine will was indicated, this was possible, just as Ananias, a 'layman,' laid hands on Saul (Ac 9"). The latter statement involves more than one un- proved assumption ; but at any rate this argument about Ananias runs counter to the jiroposition that ' the Church should by a formal act recognize the Divine oper.ition.' ' Tlie Church ' does not mean any individual layman in the Church. Mora cautiousiy Gore remarks (The Church and the MinUtrij\ London, 19U2, p. 236 n.):